TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-11-2008, 03:57 AM   #101
Agent Spalko
Guest
 
Agent Spalko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,629
Sounds just like the argument I just had with Stoo over Occam's Razor and he just directed his argument at me because he refused to believe the possibility that there could be a simpler alternative explanation than a more incredulous one.
Agent Spalko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 05:51 AM   #102
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 7,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Spalko
he just directed his argument at me because he refused to believe the possibility that there could be a simpler alternative explanation than a more incredulous one.
Other than use the word stubborn, I never attacked you personally.
(...and, my dear, it is your explanation that is the incredulous one.)

The submarine dives!
http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=13984

People whining about sci-fi elements in Indy 4 are the exact fans Lucas said would complain that he didn't make "their" movie.
Anyway, congratulations on your interview, Legendary Times.
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 06:10 AM   #103
Legendary Times
IndyFan
 
Legendary Times's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tigernuts
Maybe Mr Legendary Times should think about enrolling in a course in critical thinking. Those skills might come in handy.

Point well taken, but you haven't consulted with me beforehand, Padawan.

I, in fact, have taken three, and completed them with flying colors, A+...

Did you take even one? Be honest...

Interestingly, it is always easier to point out what others "should" do, being fast with advice, when the individuals offering the "advice" haven't gone through or performed the suggested items themselves.

As was expected, this has become an exercise at fingerpointing. I love it! Ah, the irony.

Do you really think that I have not heard any of these arguments before?

Dream on.

Again, I'm aghast at the hatred expressed by some individuals. Hatred and viciousness that's completely uncalled for. The opinions expressed only reinforce my point.
Legendary Times is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 06:11 AM   #104
Legendary Times
IndyFan
 
Legendary Times's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tigernuts
Maybe Mr Legendary Times should think about enrolling in a course in critical thinking. Those skills might come in handy.

Point well taken, but you haven't consulted with me beforehand, Padawan.

I, in fact, have taken three, and completed them with flying colors, A+...

Did you take even one? Be honest...

Interestingly, it is always easier to point out what others "should" do, being fast with advice, when the individuals offering the "advice" haven't gone through or performed the suggested items themselves.

As was expected, this has become an exercise at fingerpointing. I love it! Ah, the irony.

Do you really think that I have not heard any of these arguments before?

Dream on.

Again, I'm aghast at the hatred expressed by some individuals. Hatred and viciousness that's completely uncalled for. The opinions expressed only reinforce my point.

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Legendary Times
Legendary Times is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 06:27 AM   #105
Playmount
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentAlien

Well said, Playmount.


Though it's pointless to try and stress Occam's Razor to him; last time I tried he just directed his argument directly at me rather than assert his claims.

Lemme see if I can dredge up that old debate. It was damn good reading if I do say so myself.

EDIT:

http://raven.theraider.net/showpost....&postcount=187

There we go!

"I read your posts" and this and that about me! Tries to dodge Occam's Razor... tsk, tsk.




http://raven.theraider.net/showthrea...=11456&page=12


There's the rest of the thread. Do try and read as much of it as you can will yourself to. The bit about logical fallacies was the most amusing.


Thank you, ResidentAlien... that was very... illuminating.

Mr. Tsoukalos tends to make sweeping generalizations and has a profound and deep misunderstanding of the history and methods of science, which is not entirely unsurprising. It's amusing to see him lash out at Occam's Razor so vehemently, charging that it is "always the last resort for skeptics" and that it is "falsely used AND applied" and playing down its importance in the practice of formulating useful scientific concepts, proclaiming that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legendary Times

It does not constitute a logically coherent, ultimate proof of the notion that simpler models are actually more likely to be true.

Which is a straw man argument, of course. Occam's Razor is used today by scientists more as a maxim to aspire to -- a common sense rule of thumb approach to solving problems -- it isn't asserted as an "ultimate proof" of anything.

Sheesh!

He even goes so far as to create his own definition of the principle, introducing the word "sufficient" as most important (I assume, perverting Newton's use of the word in his definition of Occam's Razor -- Newton's "true and sufficient" meant "factual and competent" rather than Mr. Tsoukalos's "complete or coherent") then tears that definition down like the straw man it is, standing back proudly concluding that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legendary Times

Being closed-off to new (and in many ways revolutionary) ideas is an extremely arrogant (and thus fatalistic) attitude that ultimately might be our society’s downfall.



Here he commits the informal logical fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief. Of course, bad consequences are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of a claim. Like most pseudo-scientists of his ilk, he considers his ideas "revolutionary" and those who oppose them, "arrogant," "fatalistic" naysayers who deny the truth.

He claims that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legendary Times

...many, many answers given by mainstream science are not sufficient. Anyone who claims that every single answer that has been given to us by mainstream science has been (or is) correct, I’m sorry, is living under a rock.

Notice again that he gives no relevant examples, just more proof by assertion. He pathetically tries to argue that Occam's Razor is a failure because quantum physics has "mind-bending phenomena" which defy simplicity... although this is merely a type of argument from incredulity: We can't wrap our minds around quantum physics -- it's too weird, therefore forces are at work that can never be simply understood.

His view of science is a comical, farcical one: a monolithic "doctrine" which asserts absolute, "irrefutable," "complete" knowledge. This couldn't be further from the truth. As Jacob Bronowski once said:

Quote:
"Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible."
Playmount is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 06:30 AM   #106
Legendary Times
IndyFan
 
Legendary Times's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Playmount
Proof by assertion. Be specific.

Uh, this is a joke, right? You can't possibly be serious. Ok, I take that back, you must be serious, otherwise you wouldn't have posed this question.

Do you honestly expect me to write a dissertation on this forum? Sorry, this ain't the place. The information you seek can be found elsewhere. And it most certainly won't be on this forum.

Grow up, kid.

But here's an idea, subscribe to Legendary Times, then order all the available back issues of the past 10 years and all the proof you've requested is printed right there in neat, laymen's terms.

Happy reading, happy studying!

GAT
Legendary Times is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 06:47 AM   #107
Playmount
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legendary Times

Do you honestly expect me to write a dissertation on this forum?

But here's an idea, subscribe to Legendary Times, then order all the available back issues of the past 10 years and all the proof you've requested is printed right there in neat, laymen's terms.


Ah... the true reason you are here! You are selling something.

Being specific does not require verbosity, sir. If your "smoking gun" cannot be stated simply then I respectfully ask you to stop wasting everyone's time here, trying to push your product on us. I would ask you to kindly leave, "Rule in Hell" as it were on your own forum.

Moderators?
Playmount is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 09:46 AM   #108
Agent Spalko
Guest
 
Agent Spalko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Other than use the word stubborn, I never attacked you personally.

Please. You directed several other condescending words at me during your pedantic rant to arrogantly assert your position as being the only speculative possibility when the film makes no definitive answer to the outcome.

Quote:
(...and, my dear, it is your explanation that is the incredulous one.)
The submarine dives!

Not according to the film's EDITORIAL NARRATIVE which was what I was talking about which you refused to acknowledge the basis of my argument and continue to demonstrate your ignorance of editorial continuity. All Spielberg had to do was leave in one shot during the montage of Indy holding incredulously onto the periscope (which inexplicably remains up the whole time and traveling at periscope depth, I might add) all the way to the island for continuity sake but the shots were excised from the editorial narrative for obvious reasons which creates a big lapse in continuity that leaves open another distinct possibility that Occam's Razor logically suggests is the likely one. It is YOU who were being stubborn, not I.
Agent Spalko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 09:52 AM   #109
Jim Tigernuts
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 59
What are we talking about here? I forgot.

Actually I have an Honours degree in Archaeology and Ancient History and a PhD in Paleobiology, so there :P
Jim Tigernuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 10:26 AM   #110
sandiegojones
IndyFan
 
sandiegojones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tigernuts
What are we talking about here? I forgot.

Actually I have an Honours degree in Archaeology and Ancient History and a PhD in Paleobiology, so there :P
We were talking about the history channel show. Since Legendary Times is on the show I suppose these posts are relevant.

I studied World History and Anthropology in college as well so it seems we have pretty interesting discussion amongst "people in the know" here.

Last edited by sandiegojones : 05-11-2008 at 10:40 AM.
sandiegojones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 11:57 AM   #111
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 7,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Spalko
Please. You directed several other condescending words at me during your pedantic rant to arrogantly assert your position as being the only speculative possibility when the film makes no definitive answer to the outcome.
Who told who they had a periscope up their butt? (Which made me laugh, by the way.)
Consider it enthusiasm & passion mistaken for arrogance. I referred to evidence whilst you
were providing none. Anyway, your other remarks belong in the appropriate thread.

Anyone who doesn't want to see or hear sci-fi elements in Indy 4, can either:

A) Not go to the movie
B) PRETEND that you're not seeing little, green men/spaceships when they show up.
(Just as you can pretend that a sub doesn't dive even though you SEE & HEAR it.)

It'll be interesting to see how the Nazca line are used. I'm looking forward to it.
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 12:28 PM   #112
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 01:21 PM   #113
sandiegojones
IndyFan
 
sandiegojones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,251
Wow, that was below the belt, but I got a laugh.
sandiegojones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 02:30 PM   #114
Legendary Times
IndyFan
 
Legendary Times's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentAlien

This is GREAT!

I've actually printed this out and put it on my office wall! My graphic designer just commented that someone put some effort into this!

...and no, THIS is NOT below the belt, this is actually humorous.

BRILLIANT!

Thanks RA! That was a good one!

Kudos!
Legendary Times is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 05:11 PM   #115
JerryKing
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 296
JerryKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 05:26 PM   #116
Raiders of Clay
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: naples
Posts: 94
I will definetly check this out. I for one believe in the lost ark and I think we haven't found it yet. I would like to hear what other archaeologist have to say about the Indy Adventures.
Raiders of Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 06:17 PM   #117
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandiegojones
Just because you are more accepting of a religious artifact based on your beliefs doesn't mean the character is being misrepresented.
This has nothing to do with my beliefs. The character has always sought spiritual items, whether Jewish, Hindu, or Christian, and it should stay that way. If some Mayan god created the Skulls then that's great, but an alien creator is anti-Indy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandiegojones
How are aliens not supernatural? According to the reports the skull is from a dead alien but has psychic properties. Is that not supernatural? Most of the skulls have been proven fakes but I do not think the Mitchell-Hedges skull was examined so it's claim to come from Central America (though likely false) is enough for the film to use the El Dorado myth.
I never said that aliens aren't supernatural, although they shouldn't be considering everything living is natural, but I don't think the addition of aliens to Indy's stories will do anything except void the spiritual overtones of the originals. Yes, aliens could coexist with god(s/esses) but they generally aren't portrayed that way. And, like I mentioned before, this isn't Stargate.



Now, to the Ancient Astronaut pschobabble.
I love reading Daniken's books and other ridiculous theories akin to his work. But it is fiction, pure and simple, but the problem arises when someone doesn't realize this and takes it to heart.
The only reason I read it is for comedic pleasure.
For instance, in one of his books he shows of something like an ancient drawing of a man with funky hair and a picture of a boat with snakes drawn on it.
Instead of thinking about what he's seeing, he rams straight through any logical conclusions and "discovers" that the ancients were visited by men with antennae that came on space-ships carried by snakes. He refuses to realize that, in reality, the people just wore really funky hair and went over sea in canoes with snakes painted on them.
But, Daniken couldn't write that, so his new "discoveries" are born, and "boom!" he's got another million for a book.
Pitiful.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008, 06:42 PM   #118
Legendary Times
IndyFan
 
Legendary Times's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
I love reading Daniken's books and other ridiculous theories akin to his work. But it is fiction, pure and simple, but the problem arises when someone doesn't realize this and takes it to heart. In one of his books he shows of something like an ancient drawing of a man with funky hair and a picture of a boat with snakes drawn on it. Instead of thinking about what he's seeing, he rams straight through any logical conclusions and "discovers" that the ancients were visited by men with antennae that came on spaceships carried by snakes.

My apologies that it has taken me some time to reply to these (once again unsubstantiated) allegations, but I have been busy doing some press for “Indiana Jones and the Ultimate Quest” which will actually air today, Sunday, May 18th, 2008, at 8pm EST on The History Channel.

I sent a PM to WillKill4Food and politely asked him just where did he read that Evd claimed to have “discovered” that “that the ancients were visited by men with antennae that came on spaceships carried by snakes.” I was especially baffled by the “ spaceships carried by snakes” comment, which is completely nonsensical. To my recollection, EvD never made such a statement.

WK4F was courteous enough to reply to my PM, and told me I should look it up in The Gold of the Gods, which I did. And sure enough, on page 89 (hardcover edition), it does indeed say that the antennae can be interpreted from a modern space-age perspective, but nowhere does it say that their spaceships were “carried by snakes.”

However, what it does say in the 12 pages before and in the 12 pages after, is that it is an irrefutable fact that worldwide, there are countless of legends and myths that equal the snake with something having to do with flight.

Let me be very clear about one thing: our ancestors were not stupid. They were highly intelligent.

They knew perfectly well that snakes do not fly.

Yet the ancient texts are filled with references of flying snakes. Coincidence? NO.

Again, our ancestors were not dumb. However, their technological frame of reference was different to, let’s say, our modern frame of reference. So the idea the AAT proposes is that our ancestors simply did not have the vocabulary with which to “properly” describe a flying machine! Such a proposition is NOT too far fetched.

Anyone even remotely familiar with Native American history is well aware that they referred to, for example, the train as the “iron horse” etc. They described modern day, technological items with their available vocabulary!

Our ancestors, did the same. We are now in the position to recognize that this might have happened. Anyone arguing to the contrary, in my book, merely regurgitates the nonsense of the so-called “experts” instead of scratching the surface just a little deeper...

Lemmings blinded by the charade our world governments have placed in front of us in plain view.

WK4F also told me that people subscribing to the Ancient Astronaut Theory are “Ancient Astronaut believers.”

Let me set the record straight once and for all: I am NOT a believer. “Believing” something means you subscribe to an idea or thought based on blind faith alone. I don’t “believe” in the Ancient Astronaut Theory, I’m convinced of it, and so are the readers of Legendary Times.

The term "believing" also has a very religious connotation to it, so right there, the word is wrong and should not be used in this context. As explained above, "belief" is an idea based on faith alone, and worse, it also evokes "worship." I do not worship extraterrestrials. I do not bow down to them. Never have, never will.

Do I believe in God? Absolutely. But my idea of God has nothing to do with the preposterous idea of a personal God, or a God based on the Bible.

Arthur C. Clarke said it best: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (1961)

THERE you have it, THIS quote best sums up the ENTIRE Ancient Astronaut Theory, if you agree with it or not.

The "god" described in the Old Testament was NOT GOD at all, but an extraterrestrial visitor that our ancestors mistook for being divine in nature, simply because they did not comprehend the technological, nuts and bolts aspects behind this "appearance" or visit. Why do you think we have angels? Our ancestor falsely interpreted these beings as "angels" because they were unable to recognize that their ability to fly was purely [i]technological[i] in nature. It had NOTHING to do with the divine. Nothing. The idea of angels, or the way we teach our kids today that angels exist - such "angels" do not exist. Of course, saying such a thing in public is an abomination - and I'm glad it is! Today's ideas and beliefs about "guardian angels" etc. are pure hocus pocus and hogwash.

WK4F then goes on to say that he saw a History Channel documentary in which a theorist points out submarines, helicopters, and rockets in a “pattern” of Egyptian hieroglyphics. He then alleges that today's people think that (especially people subscribing to the AAT) these “patterns” are deliberate silhouettes of machines. WK4F stated that he thinks it is “pretty clear” to anyone looking at these hieroglyphs that “the Egyptians were merely carving the patterns at random and using this as a shading technique.”

By that statement alone, WK4F exposes himself as a somewhat uninformed amateur because with just a few keystrokes researching the Web, he would have realized that in the English-speaking world, I, along with Legendary Times, was the first person (and magazine) in the Alternative History field who has debunked (!!!) the Abydos inscription.

See, WK4F (and all the other clowns ganging up on me here), contrary to what you think, I’m not the enemy here.



The hieroglyphic depiction in question can be found on a massive lintel stone inside the Sethos Temple at Abydos, Egypt. As discussed, they have been interpreted often as representations of some type of technological machines. For many years, these hieroglyphic inscriptions have made the rounds in Ancient Mysteries and Ancient Astronaut circles as irrefutable pictorial evidence of the “ultimate proof.”

The inscriptions allegedly depict a helicopter, a tank, and a submarine or a fighter jet (or a UFO). And indeed, to the untrained eye, they truly look just like that. Unfortunately, in this case, the public has been misled, and it is, in fact, a false position of significance these depictions have held for many years.

So, in Legendary Times (Vol. 8 No. 1, 2006 & Vol. 7 No. 4, 2005) we presented a research paper dispelling one of the most accepted pieces of “circumstantial” evidence in the Ancient Astronaut field:

Conclusive evidence has been acquired that these inscriptions/depictions are, in fact, nothing else but overwritten (or superimposed) inscriptions.

They are representations of TWO royal names/titles (or titularies) on top of each other. The temple was first created by Sethos I (19th Dynasty, approx. 1304-1290BCE). Then, when his son, Ramesses II (19th Dynasty, 1290-1224BCE) took over, he didn’t like some of the inscriptions inside the temple and so he had some of the inscriptions removed, and in some cases (like here) he wrote (chiseled, actually) over the old inscriptions – and thus we have what looks like (but is not!) a helicopter, tank, jet, etc. (And NO, those “patterns” were NOT created “at random” by using “a shading technique.”)

Oh, and just in case some clown is wondering what the inscriptions actually mean or say, or someone is whining that I’m not specific enough (as someone has suggested in the past), here you go:

The Sethos I (19th Dynasty, approx. 1304-1290BCE) inscription reads:
“Conqueror of the 9 bow-lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt”
dr pd.t n-sw.t-bj.t

The Ramesses II (19th Dynasty, 1290-1224BCE) inscription reads:
“Protector of Egypt, conqueror of the foreign countries, King of Upper and Lower Egypt”
mk-Kmt wc.f-h3 sw.t n-sw.t-bj.t

It is the mission of Legendary Times and the Center for Ancient Astronaut Research to present factual evidence in the Ancient Astronaut field and I’ll be the first in line to go public when it turns out that some of our suggestions turn out to be wrong. Show me another study branch that does the same.

And boy, did I receive flack from within the Alternative History field! I was crucified in my own field! Why? Because I presented cold facts. I did the right thing. I am of the strong opinion that eliminating false evidence only strengthens a particular theory.

And guess what else? Yes, my boss is Erich von Daniken, and I’ve gone against his ideas on multiple occasions. So what? This does not change the validity of the general Ancient Astronaut Theory.

Think what you want. But do yourself a favor and just stop embarrassing yourself by being an ignorant fool by claiming that the MILLIONS of people subscribing to the AAT are insane. I am amazed that you feel so superior to claim such high moral ground when judging millions of others. It must be nice to be so infallible.

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Legendary Times

PS:
Resident Alien, THANK YOU again for that awesome pic you created of me with the claw! I just showed it around to my friends who are here because of my appearance on “Indiana Jones and the Ultimate Quest”. They loved your creativity!
Legendary Times is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008, 07:36 PM   #119
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
I wrote a lengthy reply but, because I looked on another tab before pressing reply, it self-destructed when I pressed submit. You guys know what I'm talking about? Anyway...

This is just more bull. More hogwash. Thanks for destroying the plane/helicopter argument, not even HC was willing to do that; but in the end you just killed all of my faith in the AA theory. Every case is just like that, easily proven wrong by someone with more knowledge.

I'm only sixteen. You're an expert. Thanks for realizing that I'm an amateur. That takes real skill.

But when I posted those things I was doing so from six-month old memory.
And, even still, your claims are no less preposterous.

Post some of this irrefutable proof you think you have. Then we'll see.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 12:36 AM   #120
Michael24
IndyFan
 
Michael24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,469
I saw this tonight and wish I had recorded it. It was much different than I was expecting. I liked hearing real archaeologists talk about how similar their real world work and experiences have been to Indiana's, from the dangers in the fields (from animals to natives) to rival archaeologists to how the field has changed over the years and become more tech-driven. Very interesting.
Michael24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 02:33 AM   #121
Legendary Times
IndyFan
 
Legendary Times's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
I'm only sixteen. You're an expert. Thanks for realizing that I'm an amateur. That takes real skill.

Ah, the anonymity of the net. Uhm, well, I guess it does take skill, because no, I had no idea you're sixteen. Does it say that anywhere? And even if it does, so what? Just because you're sixteen doesn't mean you're exempt from criticism. At sixteen you're an adult and more than capable of handling a discourse (which, by the way, you have, so what's the worry?).

No hard feelings, I would've said the exact same thing to you if you were an 80-year old geezer. No worries. (Watch The Godfather and listen to the famous line that in life, in most cases, it's not personal. It's just business.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Thanks for destroying the plane/helicopter argument, not even HC was willing to do that.

No destruction at all. Just presenting the facts. Even though I subscribe to the Alternative History viewpoint, my view is not as jaded and off-the-deep-end as some of the rest of the "experts" in this field. All I did was present cold facts. And that doesn't sit right with people? Everyone should just get a grip and stop whining.

I also highly doubt that the HC knew that this research even existed, and the "theorist" you mention most certainly would have never volunteered this information because it would've not gotten him on the tube. Explaining the inscription in the way I did, just isn't sensational enough. It is, in fact, boring.

I have to admit: The reaction here is quite baffling. So, I, in fact, did just what everyone is whining about someone should do, ie. "exposing" what turns out to be false pieces of evidence, yet I get crucified! Unbelievable! You can't have it both ways guys, because then we might as well just stop caring about anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
[...]but in the end you just killed all of my faith in the AA theory.

Like I said in many of my previous posts, eliminating pieces of evidence that turn out to be wrong, only fortifies the entire theory, it's not the other way around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Post some of this irrefutable proof you think you have. Then we'll see.

Just for this Forum? I said this before: I think not. Everything, all the proof that we have, is published quarterly in our research journal Legendary Times. It contains all the evidence you could ever ask for.

PM me your address and I'll gladly put you on the mailing list for a few issues of Legendary Times - I have an inkling (because "you got heart, kid") that you just might enjoy the publication. It is NOT the typical, run-of-the-mill loopy UFO publication. On the contrary: We're very meticulous in what we publish, and VERY conservative (yes, conservative! - oh my gosh! did he just say that?) in the research we express in the pages of LT. One of our professor contributors actually also appeared tonight on the program, which was a fun surprise! Some of you will find that hard to swallow, but that's the truth. And if anyone says anything to the contrary, then they have obviously never read any of our articles and they should just keep quiet.

"You lost today kid... but that doesn't mean you have to like it."

Ciao,

-G-

RA: Some of my friends tonight asked for photocopies of your claw creation so that they can hang it on their wall at their office. Your artwork is becoming famous!
Legendary Times is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 03:07 PM   #122
indyclone25
IndyFan
 
indyclone25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: midlothian Illinois just south of chicago
Posts: 3,369
did you watch the indy ultimate quest on the history channel

it was pretty good , i thought they would have shown more from kotcs but just a few scenes from the trailer
indyclone25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 03:34 PM   #123
doesitmatter
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 48
It was really good. Way better than the crappy Mystery of the Crystal Skulls on the Sci Fi channel.
doesitmatter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 03:44 PM   #124
Lao Che Pun
IndyFan
 
Lao Che Pun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by doesitmatter
It was really good. Way better than the crappy Mystery of the Crystal Skulls on the Sci Fi channel.

Yeah I kept changing back and forth between the two shows. Man, the Sci-fi channel show was really a two hour waste of time.
Lao Che Pun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 04:07 PM   #125
bonoferox
IndyFan
 
bonoferox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,019
I made teh mistake of watching the Crystal Skull special instead

Flipped back tot he History channel for a while near the end, though.
bonoferox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 PM.